SBCore causes Windows 2003 to shut down

F

fromage

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 16, 2002
Messages
1,814
I'm getting this in my event log that SBCore will shut down my computer in 60 minutes if I didn't configure some damned domain controller. I've tried searching Google for a solution and the only promising place was that experts-advice or w/e that charges you for the solutions.

I'm using Windows 2003 server as a workstation because, it's virtually a slim-down Windows XP without 90% of the bloat. It's alot faster IMO. Anyways, from what I can tell, I have to set up some sort of domain controller thingy but how do i do that?
 
fromage said:
I'm getting this in my event log that SBCore will shut down my computer in 60 minutes if I didn't configure some damned domain controller. I've tried searching Google for a solution and the only promising place was that experts-advice or w/e that charges you for the solutions.

I'm using Windows 2003 server as a workstation because, it's virtually a slim-down Windows XP without 90% of the bloat. It's alot faster IMO. Anyways, from what I can tell, I have to set up some sort of domain controller thingy but how do i do that?
Click to expand...

What is the *exact* error message in your event logs?
 
Is this what you're seeing?

Event Type: Error
Event Source: SBCore
Event Category: None
Event ID: 1014
Date: 25/01/2004
Time: 11:22:03
User: N/A
Computer:
Description:
This computer must be configured as a domain controller. It will be shut down in 30 minutes. To prevent this computer from shutting down, run Setup on the disk that you used to install the operating system to configure the computer as a domain controller.

For more information, see Help and Support Center at http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/events.asp.
Click to expand...
Event Type: Error
Event Source: SBCore
Event Category: None
Event ID: 1001
Date: 25/01/2004
Time: 11:52:03
User: N/A
Computer:
Description:
The server was shut down because it did not comply with the EULA. For more information, contact Microsoft.

For more information, see Help and Support Center at http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/events.asp.
Click to expand...

If so, check this out: http://support.microsoft.com/?id=555087

If you run SBS 2003, you cannot run it without it being a (well, actually the) domain controller!
 
Sarcastic, that's the exact error I got. But it doesn't say anything about Windows Small Business Server 2003 in Add/Remove Programs. :confused:
 
fromage said:
Sarcastic, that's the exact error I got. But it doesn't say anything about Windows Small Business Server 2003 in Add/Remove Programs. :confused:
Click to expand...

You will not see it in Add/Remove until you *install* it. Where did you get the Windows 2003 Server Disk? If its from a Small Business Server set then your SOL.
 
Ok, I ran it off the cd, it installed some shit, took forever, then i disabled it...now it seems like the problems gone. What a waste of time lol.
 
fromage said:
Ok, I ran it off the cd, it installed some shit, took forever, then i disabled it...now it seems like the problems gone. What a waste of time lol.
Click to expand...

Your bitching because your trying to run a server OS as a workstation? If you'd paid attention at all to the links provided and such you would understand *WHY* it occured and realize what you could do in the future to not even go thru such measures.
 
I ran into this error the first time I installed SBS 2003.

Basically - the catch is that the reboot/shutdown does not happen until 7 days after you finish the install and the SBS 2003 server is not a domain controller.

pretty lame setup in my book.
 
Loneregister said:
I ran into this error the first time I installed SBS 2003.

Basically - the catch is that the reboot/shutdown does not happen until 7 days after you finish the install and the SBS 2003 server is not a domain controller.

pretty lame setup in my book.
Click to expand...

It's not lame, it's because the license requires the SBS install to be a domain controller. If you would have *really finished* the SBS install, it would have been a domain controller and you would not have had that problem.
 
It's lame because it puts a machine out on the network that appears to work, yet 7 days later decides to shut down.

It's inside knowledge that you'd only know in two circumstances. If someone told you (i.e. classes or someone else) or if you'd experienced it yourself.

Causing the machine to shut down is aggregious. It should shut down either immediately, warn the installer, or REQUIRE the install to complete prior to going up.

That's why it's lame.
 
Loneregister said:
It's lame because it puts a machine out on the network that appears to work, yet 7 days later decides to shut down.

It's inside knowledge that you'd only know in two circumstances. If someone told you (i.e. classes or someone else) or if you'd experienced it yourself.

Causing the machine to shut down is aggregious. It should shut down either immediately, warn the installer, or REQUIRE the install to complete prior to going up.

That's why it's lame.
Click to expand...

It's not inside knowledge since the event logs tell you what the problem is.

It would not be prudent to cause the machine to immediately shutdown after installing the base OS, as you wouldn't be able to install various updates, service packs, drivers etc for other devices that may be in the server prior to installing the rest of the components of SBS. It should not take 7 days for anyone to do a complete SBS install.

What we have here is people using an OS outside of its intended purpose and then complaining when it doesn't work right. Thats Lame. :rolleyes:
 
you shoukld rpobably read the rquirements and limtations of SBS products before you buy them to make sure they fit your needs. IT can only save you money if its going to do what you need it to do. Do some reaserch first!
 
Here's the problem.

without warning, and without a notice PRIOR to the shutdown happening, 7 days after installing the system will turn off. Often, with you away or out of town.

Now that I know that Microsoft in their *infinite* wisdom did this, it will never be a problem again.

But, just shutting down the system - lamo.

Just because microsoft wants to force us to use SBS a certain way, in order to gain market share, is not a valid reason to force the shutdown of a machine 7 days from now.

You guys are just trying to say that "because microsoft says" makes it right.

That crap.
 
Let's take a situation:

Install SBS.

come up to first start and the "install wizard" starts up. Now - in EVERY other system that people install, wizards are OPTIONAL, and the system will still function without completing them.

So - you close the wizard, install a few things that you need, and everything tests out ok. So , you set the machine up, and put it in production utilizing the features you need. In my mind this is a security concious way to go. DO NOT INSTALL what you don't use. Leaves fewer security gaps.

Then, 7 days later, without warning, without notice, without so much as a "hey, I am going to shut down" - the system starts shutting down every hour. Wheeee!

Now imagine that the install happened at a branch location 500 miles away? What do you do now? Fly back and fix it? Remote install it?

Pretty effective way to put someone in a bind when, in fact, Microsoft could have made it plan and simple that this Wizard, unlike any other wizard, is REQUIRED and will cause the machine to shutdown every hour if you DON'T COMPLETE IT.

Computers should be programmed to help people - not cause problems by design.

It's a poor implementation of licensing.
 
So, if I understand you correctly, you are upset about your ignorance.

Regardless of what MS does with their OSes, you can hardly get angry with THEM for YOU not knowing something.

Don't blame your tools, and all that...
 
This is hilarious. What are the odds that someone buys small business server 2003 and then DOESNT want to finish its setup. Just by getting to the desktop you are still only halfway done with its actual setup. For you to be mad about "getting no warning for it to shutdown" is like getting mad about XP not giving you a year to activate. You aren't doing what you are supposed to be doing therefore YOU are in error. The purpose of small business server is to have exchange, sharepoint, and all the extras that comes with it for an awesome price. To want to use it without all of that crap is probably the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time, no offense. ;) Maybe you aren't aware that there is a normal version of Windows Server 2003? That is the only valid explanation other then you are in the wrong business... Just out of curiousity, have you also tried to install WinXP Tablet Edition on your desktop?
 
wizards are OPTIONAL
Click to expand...
That looks like your fatal assumption.

Don't blame the tool, after all it's just a tool. You just don't know/weren't aware what the tool you have is used for. It's for setting up a domain in a small business environment. If you want full functionality, but the full product. If you want more processors buy and fail safe, get enterprise ed., etc.
 
I have to concur with the general consensus here. SBS is a wonderful product designed for small business of about 50-75 clients. Its cheap, robust, easy to manage and highly integrated. Thats the point though, its designed as a server level product for businesses.

BTW, am I the only one who caught this?
I'm using Windows 2003 server as a workstation because, it's virtually a slim-down Windows XP without 90% of the bloat.
Click to expand...
?
SBS 2003? Less bloat for a desktop? rofl
 
I saw it, and I'm just wondering if he keeps it after he finishes setup to resolve his "shutdown error." I'm thinking it ain't slimmed down anymore now that exchange, sharepoint, reporting software, remote web workplace, etc are running. I guess he could disable the services, but come on...
 
TrechMaggotface said:
BTW, am I the only one who caught this?

SBS 2003? Less bloat for a desktop? rofl
Click to expand...
Server 2k3 as a desktop isn't a bad idea, probably where he's getting the idea.

edit: Old Pueblo, think about it this way. Datacenter-code=enterprise-code=server-code=workstation. So server 2k3 is XP with a newer core+server code. Disable a few dohickies and gizmos, voilla, 2k3 workstation.
 
Well, you do have me there. It's my fault totally for not continuing the setup. Of course, my assumption that Wizards are optional is incorrect in this case. Please let me know of any other wizards that when not completed, will result in the system working fine for 7 days and then shutting down?

I realize that their reason for doing this is to allow the migration of a Primary Domain Server to the new SBS system. But couldn't they have thought up a more elegant way of handling this situation.

Or does this go under the category of priveledged high paid consultant information that justifies their fees?

Tell me where, in the documentation it states that the system will shut down if the setup is not completed? I think I am safe in saying that it's probably buried in the middle of a paragraph on page 35. Or, you get taught this when you go to SBS server install school for $1500.

I am amazed that everyone is defending this design decision?
 
Phoenix86 said:
Server 2k3 as a desktop isn't a bad idea, probably where he's getting the idea.
Click to expand...
Indeed. SBS 2003 is an entirely different story though. Its the antethesis of no bloat. Its everything for a small MS network in one
 
Dude, you found a wizard that isn't optional. Where in the manual did it say it was ok? Let start there, mmkay?

Some things you learn through trial by fire. Welcome to the #1 method for learning computers. When you learn things this way you rarely forget. Learn enough crap that ISN'T in manuals, and you become that high paid consultant.

TrechMaggotface, totally agree it's a bad idea for SBS, but I know several people who have ditched XP for server 2k3, which is why I mentioned it.
 
You know, every time I read one of these threads I find myself wondering if any of those folks who just happen to "have ditched XP for server 2k3" actually paid $500-600 for a desktop OS ...

Just an idle pointless thought :p

- Qualm
 
Qualm said:
You know, every time I read one of these threads I find myself wondering if any of those folks who just happen to "have ditched XP for server 2k3" actually paid $500-600 for a desktop OS ...

Just an idle pointless thought :p

- Qualm
Click to expand...

SBS standard retails for $500 ,SBS Premium retails for $1500, Windows 2003 Standard retails around $700-$800.

I seriously doubt anyone who uses a Server OS as a workstation paid anything near retail or paid anything at all.
 
Loneregister said:
Well, you do have me there. It's my fault totally for not continuing the setup. Of course, my assumption that Wizards are optional is incorrect in this case. Please let me know of any other wizards that when not completed, will result in the system working fine for 7 days and then shutting down?

I realize that their reason for doing this is to allow the migration of a Primary Domain Server to the new SBS system. But couldn't they have thought up a more elegant way of handling this situation.

Or does this go under the category of priveledged high paid consultant information that justifies their fees?

Tell me where, in the documentation it states that the system will shut down if the setup is not completed? I think I am safe in saying that it's probably buried in the middle of a paragraph on page 35. Or, you get taught this when you go to SBS server install school for $1500.

I am amazed that everyone is defending this design decision?
Click to expand...

I'm fairly certian that the "quick start" guide or "manual" has everything you needed to know in this situation. Every good IT person reads the manual right?
 
SJConsultant said:
SBS standard retails for $500 ,SBS Premium retails for $1500, Windows 2003 Standard retails around $700-$800.

I seriously doubt anyone who uses a Server OS as a workstation paid anything near retail or paid anything at all.
Click to expand...
Many, like me, are getting them free from MS during 2k3 classes.
 
beyond all the argument you have to remeber that even though a lot of people hark on MS. There is method to there maddness and they do have reasons for it all. You may not need all the wizards but when you buy something that you haven't researched/read/experienced/trialed whaterver, you just don't jump into it. In IT departments they never just haul off and install a new server os or deploy anything or even buy for that matter, with prices like they are, without reading about it fully. Or atleast that's what i do at my IT department :cool:

One side note though. In my experience when i get to more specific versions of windows i love the wizards. :)
 
MS makes some pretty good products. They get a bad rap as they are pretty much the largest target out there.

In my situation, I had installed the software on a test machine, done testing, and saw that it did what I needed. No reason to leave it up for 5 days or 7 days or 10 days. After 2 days of it running just fine - I was under the (*mistaken*) impression that everything worked.

Because - everything did work! :)

So - I get the install done in our branch location, get it setup, test it, run it, get it rolled out and all is well. 7 days later no hitches. Except when the darn things decides to shut itself down, due to this restriction - which had not been communicated to me.

Instruction manuals - ROFL.... Seriously, do we all sit down and read every paragraph of every page of every thing that we install?

I am NOT bagging on the product - just that microsoft chose to do this arbitrary "turn off after 7 days" dealy.

Other than that fiasco - the product runs like a dream, and does everything that I need it to.
 
Loneregister said:
In my situation, I had installed the software on a test machine, done testing, and saw that it did what I needed. No reason to leave it up for 5 days or 7 days or 10 days. After 2 days of it running just fine - I was under the (*mistaken*) impression that everything worked.

Because - everything did work! :)
Click to expand...

I have to ask ......... Why did you select SBS over regular Windows 2003 Server for a branch office?
 
OldPueblo said:
I'm fairly certian that the "quick start" guide or "manual" has everything you needed to know in this situation. Every good IT person reads the manual right?
Click to expand...
Sure, after something breaks.

The mark of a professional ( well, a professional that doesn't read manuals, mind ), is who they blame when they make mistakes.
 
I used SBS because of pricing and because of the tasks I need it to perform. But mainly as a VPN entry server, with the option for email stuff later on.

Oh gawd.... Another issue waiting to bite me? Greaat! :rolleyes:

Wanna share with me so that I can avoid it if I have not already?
 
No avoiding this one, but it may not bother you depending on whether or not you want the branches networked together. SBS can't trust or join any other domains. Its designed to be the only domain controller with no ability to share that responsibility or trust another domain. If the branches don't really need to communicate with each other on a network level, then no biggie for you. How about you post what all you would like to do and we can save you some time/trouble maybe...
 
Loneregister said:
I used SBS because of pricing and because of the tasks I need it to perform. But mainly as a VPN entry server, with the option for email stuff later on.

Oh gawd.... Another issue waiting to bite me? Greaat! :rolleyes:

Wanna share with me so that I can avoid it if I have not already?
Click to expand...
Umm, you may be screwed.... Because SBS is basically meant as a stand alone network, it won't communicate with other domains. It's can't join or trust them, like Old Pueblo said. So if this is meant as a 'entry server' I'm assuming it's connecting to something else, like another domain/network.

EDIT2:First edit was for SBS2k, not 2k3...

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/sbs/techinfo/overview/generalfaq.mspx

"Q. What is Windows Server 2003 for Small Business Server?

A. Windows Server 2003 for Small Business Server is designed for partners who want to deliver a server solution based on Windows Server 2003 as part of their product offering. It provides the same version of Windows Server 2003 that is used by Windows Small Business Server 2003, but it has none of the added features included in the standard edition or premium edition of Windows Small Business Server 2003.

Windows Server 2003 for Small Business Server has the following restrictions:

• Only one computer in a domain can be running Windows Server 2003 for Small Business Server.

• Windows Server 2003 for Small Business Server must be the root of the Active Directory® forest.

• Windows Server 2003 for Small Business Server cannot trust any other domains.

• A Windows Server 2003 for Small Business Server domain cannot have any child domains.

• Each additional server must have a Windows Server 2003 for Small Business Server client access license (CAL). You can use CALs for each user or for each device."
 
My colleague changed the FSMO roles on SBS2003 thinking to share the load across some other DC's.
Unfortunately he changed the PDC role to a 2003 Std server and SBS then shut itself down after 7 days.
Really exciting as he had gone on holiday and not documented the changes.
Woo hoo!!:)
 
Honestly i fyou had proper monitoring installed, you would have known about the SBcore shutdown issue, and it would haved warned you 7 days in advance that SBS was not a DC and will shut down. MS is restrictive with SBS for a reason, its cheaper.

That and all SBcore events are logged in the event viewer.
 
I cant believe the apologists defending this behavior. This is typical Microsoft, and it's very lame.
"Well its in the event logs zomg!" I dont know about you guys but I dont proactively check event logs every day for issues. I check them after something goes wrong to find a root cause. (And once in a while during slow times). Yes, in an ideal world we would all have time to proactively check up on every server we can, but those of you who actually work for a living know better.

A simple message during install would have sufficed.
 
Monkey God said:
I cant believe the apologists defending this behavior. This is typical Microsoft, and it's very lame.
"Well its in the event logs zomg!" I dont know about you guys but I dont proactively check event logs every day for issues. I check them after something goes wrong to find a root cause. (And once in a while during slow times). Yes, in an ideal world we would all have time to proactively check up on every server we can, but those of you who actually work for a living know better.

A simple message during install would have sufficed.
Click to expand...

Its on the SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS how more clear do they need to be?

SBS has to be a domain controll and remain the ROOT of the domain, holding all 5 FSMO roles.

Monitoring would have picked this up, and all servers should be monitored in some way
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top